Julian Assange claims his encrypted laptops were stolen in 2010 while traveling

Julian Assange, the founder and publisher of WikiLeaks, filed criminal complaints in Germany and Sweden on Monday and Tuesday, alleging “unlawful interference in [WikiLeaks'] journalistic activities.” President Barack Obama is in Sweden this week on a state visit and had a press conference with his Swedish counterpart on Wednesday.

In a press release published on the WikiLeaks website on Monday, the organization wrote that it would be filing “four criminal complaints to be filed in different jurisdictions by WikiLeaks during the month of September.”

In a 186-page English-language affidavit (a more complete version with all of the appendices is available here), Assange claims that his “journalistic activities” were “monitored” by an American military intelligence officer while Assange was in Germany between December 26, 2009 and December 30, 2009. The silver-haired Australian also claims that there was a “likely unlawful seizure of property” in September 2010 consisting of “three encrypted laptops containing privileged journalistic and legal materials including evidence of a war crime.”

"I am informed by my legal advisors that this formal document may trigger an investigation and that independent judicial bodies may seek explanations of the responsible authorities as a result," he concludes. "I file this affidavit in the knowledge that there will likely be pressures for this matter not to be investigated but in the knowledge that the law requires an investigation. I request that Swedish judicial authorities act swiftly to question and arrest if necessary those who are likely to have information about or bear criminal responsibility for the actions taken against WikiLeaks and my person as detailed in this affidavit."

“Here Be Dragons”

Assange alleges that a bag that he checked on a commercial flight between Arlanda airport in Stockholm and Tegel airport in Berlin simply disappeared. WikiLeaks says it waited until the recent conclusion of the court martial of Pvt. Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning) to file the criminal complaints.

During Manning’s trial, there was testimony on June 11 from Matthew Hosburgh, a current reservist staff sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. Hosburgh had been stationed as a special intelligence system administrator at an American military base in Stuttgart in late 2009. He told the court that he attended a talk by Assange, where that year's annual Chaos Communication Congress during the last week of December 2009 in Berlin was dubbed “Here Be Dragons." A week later, Hosburgh wrote an “after action report” for his superiors concerning the nature of Assange’s talk.

“[Hosburgh’s] report was leaked to WikiLeaks and was being prepared for publication during September 2010,” Assange alleges. “The report was among the WikiLeaks materials that had been kept encrypted in the suitcase that was seized on September 27, 2010 when I was travelling from Stockholm to Berlin.”

Since WikiLeaks' founding in 2007, Assange knows that the very nature of the WikiLeaks organization puts himself at risk. As a result, he has taken certain precautions while previously on the move. After answering questions from Swedish authorities concerning alleged possible sex crimes, Assange left to attend “two long-standing appointments” in Berlin on September 27, 2010.

I implement counter-intelligence practices when I am aware that there is an active intelligence interest in my activities and movements. As I have explained above, I had learned through WikiLeaks' own sources and through media reports that there were heightened activities of this nature directed at me. As an investigative journalist who specializes in intelligence reporting, one of the methods I use to reduce the chance of post-flight surveillance of my work is to buy or exchange tickets immediately before a flight, often at the airport, so that intelligence services do not have sufficient time to observe, understand, alert, authorize, equip, and deploy.

I followed my routine counter-intelligence practice in this instance as well. I arrived at the airport just after noon with the intention of purchasing a ticket shortly before the departure on the early afternoon flight. However, I was not able to gain a seat on my preferred flight and had to wait until a later flight, SAS SK2679 departing at 17.25. As a result, I was forced to wait at the airport for many hours longer than I would prefer, given my security concerns.

I knew that Swedish intelligence services and possibly other countries' intelligence agencies were likely to monitor Arlanda airport and its ticketing system. I was concerned that my continued presence at Arlanda would be noticed and would permit those monitoring the airport to inform US authorities of my presence, take action themselves and/or alert German counterparts or services operating unlawfully in Germany of my pending arrival.

. . .

[Chaos Computer Club member and Assange colleague] Andy Müller-Maguhn (Appendix C) learned through his inquiries that the disappearance of my luggage on a flight with these characteristics was highly unusual: where luggage goes missing there is a 12-hour policy in place for the Star-Alliance partners. If inquiries are not dealt with within this time frame, the inquiry is prioritized. It seemed that this had not happened in my case. My suitcase had simply disappeared from the system. The lack of response or resolution on the part of the authorities and handling companies compounded these unusual characteristics.

“Action required Assange to be arrested under all circumstances”

The rest of the affidavit consists of a detailed timeline of Assange’s and WikiLeaks’ activities in recent years. Assange notes that since being holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, the Metropolitan Police has been spending over $16,000 per day waiting for him to leave. Presumably, if he did so, he would be immediately arrested and extradited to Sweden and/or the United States.

Assange writes:

On August 24, 2012 I gave a public speech from the Ecuadorian embassy. A high resolution camera operated by the British Press Association captured a police document (Appendix I). The document indicated that the Metropolitan Police's counter-terrorism protective security command (S020) and the unknown 'SS10' unit were involved in surveilling the embassy. In addition to the unexplained presence of the counter-terrorism unit and other police units deployed on this day, the document revealed that the police force was instructed to violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in order to arrest me:

“Action required Assange to be arrested under all circumstances” including if “He comes out with dip immune [diplomatic immunity] as dip bag in dip bag in dip vehicle.”

110 Reader Comments

Assange has stated that Sweden and the UK simply have to guarantee he won't be extradited to the US and he'll show up in Sweden for the interview for which his presence has been required (they refuse to interview him in the UK). If the US weren't planning something (via extradition), wouldn't that be a logical step on either the part of the UK or Sweden to resolve this impasse? Why won't either country grant this quite simple request?

If you're ever wanted for questioning in a crime, you should dictate the terms to the authorities.

Let us know how that works out for you.

It really doesn't seem unreasonable to request that if he is wanted for an interview about a crime in Sweden, they not take the opportunity to extradite him to a country that may seek life in prison for the crime of journalism.

He may or may not be right about the plans for extradition, I personally don't care, but their unwillingness to give him that guarantee is somewhat telling.

They cant promise him because USA has not requested an extradition of Assange, it's a part of the legal hoops and bureaucracy...

Actually, you've got it entirely backwards. If there is no request for an extradition, then they should have no problem promising they won't extradite him to the US.

Why should the Swedish government have to accommodate Julian Assange by making those kinds of promises? Who would make that promise? The public prosecutor certainly can't, and the government is explicitly forbidden from interfering ("Ministerstyre"):

Chapter 11. art. 7 of The (Swedish) Instrument of Government:

No public authority, including the Riksdag and the decision-making bodies of local authorities, may determine how an administrative authority shall decide in a particular case relating to the exercise of public authority vis-à-vis a private subject or a local authority, or relating to the application of law.

Assange has stated that Sweden and the UK simply have to guarantee he won't be extradited to the US and he'll show up in Sweden for the interview for which his presence has been required (they refuse to interview him in the UK). If the US weren't planning something (via extradition), wouldn't that be a logical step on either the part of the UK or Sweden to resolve this impasse? Why won't either country grant this quite simple request?

If you're ever wanted for questioning in a crime, you should dictate the terms to the authorities.

Let us know how that works out for you.

It really doesn't seem unreasonable to request that if he is wanted for an interview about a crime in Sweden, they not take the opportunity to extradite him to a country that may seek life in prison for the crime of journalism.

He may or may not be right about the plans for extradition, I personally don't care, but their unwillingness to give him that guarantee is somewhat telling.

They cant promise him because USA has not requested an extradition of Assange, it's a part of the legal hoops and bureaucracy...

Actually, you've got it entirely backwards. If there is no request for an extradition, then they should have no problem promising they won't extradite him to the US.

No, you are the one that gets it backward, Assange is not in a position to make such demands, he's had his day in court and in appeals court, both have found that there's no reason to deny Swedens request for extradition and moreover they've also found that the offenses would be considered rape in the UK as well.

How naive. He is making demands, he is in absolutely the best position to make demands because he isn't in custody - just because you don't think he has a right to, I'm pretty sure his lawyers could really give a fuck what you think, they are making demands and until his demands are met he is going to sit happily in that embassy eating up ~£12,000 per day which is eating up the British public's patience at roughly the same rate (the more the UK spends on this police vigil the more the public wants government to just let him go, regardless who is paying for this folly). The whole system of jurisprudence is all about negotiation, he's doing that and he has every right to do so until he has no bargaining chips remaining. To say he is not in a position to make any demands is just silly.

I'm gobsmacked by the blind obedience and reverence toward authority being expressed by some here, as if authority is *always* right and we must *always* defer to exactly what they say, because we are mere servants of their majesty. What proudly servile and obsequious little citizens they have in all of you.

The US government shills are out in full force already here. Do you think if we were to check their IP addresses one or more of them might show TOR addresses or other addresses hiding their true US government and military identities?

Prep the black helicopters, we've got a hot one...

Yeah, because with all the leaks even just lately, what we now know for certain is that our governments are, if nothing else, entirely honest and filled with integrity, but worshiping at the alter of apologism blinds one in their faith that our governments are all good and their behaviours and intentions are perpetually and utterly above reproach.

Yes, mocking you for paranoia means I "worship at the alter of apologism" blah blah blah.

Seriously, the NSA & friends create dozens of Ars accounts over a period of years, make thousands of posts on random subjects, just so they can manipulate the tone of a discussion about some asshat in the Ecuadorian embassy in London? I don't doubt they know exactly who we all are (or could look it up the instant they cared) but come on. You're just not that important.

The US government shills are out in full force already here. Do you think if we were to check their IP addresses one or more of them might show TOR addresses or other addresses hiding their true US government and military identities?

Prep the black helicopters, we've got a hot one...

Yeah, because with all the leaks even just lately, what we now know for certain is that our governments are, if nothing else, entirely honest and filled with integrity, but worshiping at the alter of apologism blinds one in their faith that our governments are all good and their behaviours and intentions are perpetually and utterly above reproach.

Yes, mocking you for paranoia means I "worship at the alter of apologism" blah blah blah.

Seriously, the NSA & friends create dozens of Ars accounts over a period of years, make thousands of posts on random subjects, just so they can manipulate the tone of a discussion about some asshat in the Ecuadorian embassy in London? I don't doubt they know exactly who we all are (or could look it up the instant they cared) but come on. You're just not that important.

Secrecy is the basis of all negotiation--business, diplomatic, etc. I know things I hope you don't know, you know things you hope I don't know, and we capitalize on each other's presumed ignorance to negotiate an equitable solution in which both sides walk away thinking they've "won."

You can actually negotiate without secrets, although i was actually talking about not having secret negotiations, such as the crafting of ACTA and the TPP were. In regards to international diplomacy, much of it could be simplified to "don't bomb, and I won't bomb you, and we can trade freely." And both sides can win in a good negotiation. That's what those business types call a win-win.

Quote:

Indeed, if secrecy is so worthless, I would wonder what the hullaballoo about the NSA snooping foreign ministries is all about. Bad manners?!

Secrecy needs to be justified for governments. Governments and individuals are two completely different things. The diplomats and other government officials can have private lives when not acting as representatives. Whether or not Bill Clinton is screwing around isn't really our concern, at least if we don't include the concern that he is doing it during times he is working, or that he's mixing business and pleasure. In those cases, it may be a concern, and that is a more complicated line to draw. However, what the president says to Putin is our concern, so unless there's something in those discussions that would put many people in danger, it should be public. Even in such a case, it should be public as soon as lives are no longer reasonably in danger.

I'm gobsmacked by the blind obedience and reverence toward authority being expressed by some here, as if authority is *always* right and we must *always* defer to exactly what they say, because we are mere servants of their majesty. What proudly servile and obsequious little citizens they have in all of you.

Three rules to live by:

1. Never ascribe to maliciousness that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Which means what, exactly; you've given up defending your stupid claim that we're all a bunch of US military shills hiding out in the TOR network? You're hoping to just sweep the paranoia under the rug?

Yes, mocking you for paranoia means I "worship at the alter of apologism" blah blah blah.

Seriously, the NSA & friends create dozens of Ars accounts over a period of years, make thousands of posts on random subjects, just so they can manipulate the tone of a discussion about some asshat in the Ecuadorian embassy in London? I don't doubt they know exactly who we all are (or could look it up the instant they cared) but come on. You're just not that important.

Spoiler: show

And I know that because I looked up your file.

His post is a bit misguided, but not totally off the mark. I'm skeptical of the widespread usage of shills (although there is a bit of legitimate suspicion over posters that appear out of nowhere or only post on a very limited range of subjects). However, I think the real thing at play is basically something in the range of fanboyism to brainwashing. A number of the pro-govt posters have acknowledged military backgrounds, and soldiers are trained to be fanboys. However, their post-purchase rationalization is not economic, but rather, experience based, and the experiences of many servicemen is severe. So, they may be genuinely interested in tech and tech issues, but when certain subjects come up, they toe the line hard. Even if they don't believe that what was being done was right, they hold the problem being that Snowden or whomever didn't follow chain of command and is thus wrong or misguided.

If his "encrypted" laptops were stolen then he shouldn't worry since he of course must have used a secure password and strong encryption.... And can't we all just get over Assange I did support him in the beginning but now he seems like a politician that needs media attention to stay alive... And he doesn't deserve special treatment in the eyes of the law, but I do really feel sorry for the British tax payers that have to pony up $16000 per day for him not daring the "dangerous" Swedish legal system... Have anyone even seen Swedish prisons? and so on...

And having important files on a computer in luggage you do not have 100% knowledge of where it is and where it will end up... I've heard of animals ending up on the wrong continent and I think it was some (probably made up) statistic that up to 5% of all checked in luggage end up in the wrong place....

I don't know a whole lot about the Swedish penal system, but seeing Gottfrid Svartholm stay in solitary for months without bail or a court date being set didn't give me the best impression.

It does not, and it is a somewhat surreal experience to read many of the statements made, and all the sudden "apparent" expertise into the subject.

I do not think the Swedish justice system is the worst in Europe, but neither do I think that it today is the best, far from it, and I believe it does face a formidable challenge to reform, which will be a hard test going forward.

A problem in this case is that much of the international "appreciation" appears to be based upon a "picture" of the performance 20-30 years ago.

Just as a comparison, (because it perhaps illustrates the point and because there exist easily accessible “hard” data of international performance and because the time frame and some of the societal forces at play are the same)

The Swedish school system was in the early 1980s by many seen as one of the most progressive and best in the world, but in international surveys of pupils performance, Swedish schools now for example performs worse then the US, and in the last PISA study done for mathematics in 2009, Sweden came in first on 29:th place.

I do not think it is common knowledge, that the Swedish school system, and pupils performance has collapsed, and that Sweden has gone through a quite tremendous societal change over the past 30 years.

This has also effected the judicial system, but here, hard comparable data is (of course) much more difficult to assess and compile.

Circumstantial evidence is for example, that Sweden now has among the longest pre-trial detentions in Europe, and there have been cases where people have been held for more then three years, in total solitary confinements, 23h a day, practically without any access to media, books, newspaper, friends and family.

As Sweden has no bail system, these are people who haven't yet been convicted of any crime, and isolation is now routinely done to around around 40% of all suspects I think.

If I remember correctly (I don't have the exact data easily accessible), The Swedish states payments of damages for people who are later acquitted, has since around 2000 more then doubled, and since early 1990 increase >500%

And if you take the time to look up the periodic reports done under the UN convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, Sweden has been criticized severely for this, and just as a comparison; the Swedish report (for 2008 if I remember correctly) is longer (counted in the number of pages) then the one for example Britain (which has x6 times the population!).

So I wonder if not many of those who now express high opinions in regard to the Swedish justice system, does so based on past laurels, and not on current, up to date knowledge, and perhaps in regard to business law, and not criminal law...

So I wonder if not many of those who now express high opinions in regard to the Swedish justice system, does so based on past laurels, and not on current, up to date knowledge, and perhaps in regard to business law, and not criminal law...

I am half-swedish, and my experience with Swedish justice and Swedish prosecutorial interest is from three years ago when I was fifteen and suspected of having taken part in an act of vandalism at my school. Fortunately for me, they hauled in people who knew the prime suspect - and I was one of the people he hung with.

I wasn't tortured, nor locked up for three years.

Occam's razor applies here. Assange is most likely a highly disagreeable person who created a good thing in WikiLeaks. The women deserve justice.

So I wonder if not many of those who now express high opinions in regard to the Swedish justice system, does so based on past laurels, and not on current, up to date knowledge, and perhaps in regard to business law, and not criminal law...

I am half-swedish, and my experience with Swedish justice and Swedish prosecutorial interest is from three years ago when I was fifteen and suspected of having taken part in an act of vandalism at my school. Fortunately for me, they hauled in people who knew the prime suspect - and I was one of the people he hung with.

I wasn't tortured, nor locked up for three years.

Occam's razor applies here. Assange is most likely a highly disagreeable person who created a good thing in WikiLeaks. The women deserve justice.

Wait, are you seriously saying that because you weren't locked up for three years for a crime it sounds like you were never even charged with, the data regarding long pre trial prison terms is meaningless? Assange may or may not have committed the crimes he's accused of, I don't know and as I don't know or particularly care about Assange as an individual, it doesn't mean much to me either way. However, Sweden definitely has, in some respects at least, a terrible system. I mentioned earlier Gottfrid Svartholm, who spent months in solitary confinement, allowed one family visit a week. During this time the court date hadn't even been set because the prosecution said they needed more time to find evidence.

They locked him up for months because they didn't yet have enough evidence to convict him.

I am given to understand that this is a fairly regular occurrence, the previous poster said it can happen in 40% of cases, and that agrees with the statistics quoted in articles I've read about Mr. Svartholm. You can't tell me that isn't pretty fucked up. In reference to Assange, sure, I think he should go back and stand trial, but since there is at least the possibility that he will spend the rest of his natural life in an American prison if he goes, and has the option of continuing to accept asylum for the foreseeable future, I don't think I would do anything else.

So I wonder if not many of those who now express high opinions in regard to the Swedish justice system, does so based on past laurels, and not on current, up to date knowledge, and perhaps in regard to business law, and not criminal law...

I am half-swedish, and my experience with Swedish justice and Swedish prosecutorial interest is from three years ago when I was fifteen and suspected of having taken part in an act of vandalism at my school. Fortunately for me, they hauled in people who knew the prime suspect - and I was one of the people he hung with.

I wasn't tortured, nor locked up for three years.

Occam's razor applies here. Assange is most likely a highly disagreeable person who created a good thing in WikiLeaks. The women deserve justice.

Just to perhaps clarify, my comment was made in regard to the Swedish justice system, and that maybe the high implicit or explicit expressed opinions is not warranted, in the light of the current situation. It had as such, no direct relevance in regard to Julian Assange.

But in regard to your own “brush” with the law, perhaps you should be thankful, and direct some sympathy and thought for the many others, who the statistical data show, fare far worse.

That is one of the things, I do not doubt that your personal experience feels highly relevant, but, it is anecdotal. Nothing wrong with that, but in relation to extensive statistical data, and for example the United Nations periodic reports, it has very little value in it self.

“I think you're misusing Occam's razor. Occam's razor is the principle that, in the absence of evidence, it's better to assume that the simplest theory is correct.”

It says nothing about which theory is actually correct. That's what the evidence is for!”

And in the case of Julian Assange there exists lots of evidence, and the problem is rather to accurately asses it, and separate what is relevant from what is not, which is no small task, especially for all those who have no direct access to original sources and data in Swedish, cultural and historical knowledge, and have to rely on second or third hand translation and opinions.

And in the case of Julian Assange there exists lots of evidence, and the problem is rather to accurately asses it, and separate what is relevant from what is not, which is no small task, especially for all those who have no direct access to original sources and data in Swedish, cultural and historical knowledge, and have to rely on second or third hand translation and opinions.

Sorry, just to be clear; there's lots of evidence regarding the sexual assault allegations? Or the idea that the US is trying to extradite him from Sweden? Or something else?

Edit: In general the voting on a subject is just to be ignored, but I do find it amusing when someone will vote down a simple request for clarification. God forbid we try to understand what each other are saying.

The problem with the charges in Sweden is that they contradict themselves:

1: Unlawful coercion. He forced sex on her by laying on top of her with his weight. OK. Seems reasonable. Until #2 below.

2. Sexual molestation. Injured party expresses wish that condom be used for sex. Either she let him go forward without one (consent?) or it broke during act. Condoms are only 99.9% effective. Could you EVER get a prosecution on whether or not someone was aware of something (the condoom breaking) without a confession? Why would you expect him to know if she couldn't tell it broke? And if she knew it broke, why didn't she stop?

3. Sexual molestation. They slept in the same bed while he was aroused. She couldn't get up and leave?

4. Rape. Again, questions over whether condom was used or broke with a second "victim". How do you not know if your partner is wearing a condom?

These charges are absurd. If they were really molested or raped, would you continue socializing with the rapist around town?

Wait, let me understand this: he is complaining that his private information has escaped his control, has become free against his will?? After he has made clear that he feels he has the right to do exactly that to other's private data? Wut?

Wow, I wish I had a dollar for every time this bit of dubious "wisdom" gets trotted out by some clever little snot.

I don't see any Congress members in this list, but even if so, they don't individually have the authorization to do anything beyond wagging their political jaws.

But that's still beside the point; nobody has yet presented a credible argument why the US would be orchestrating false charges in Sweden when they have a perfectly serviceable extradition treaty with the UK. The idea that some sort of espionage charge wouldn't get him extradited from the UK is risible.

The fact that Assange is now saying he expects political pressure to stop a police investigation into three-year-old lost luggage dovetails nicely with his unsupported claim that the US is pulling all these strings in Sweden; it's almost like he's performing some bizarre sort of psyop to discredit himself.

I don't see any Congress members in this list, but even if so, they don't individually have the authorization to do anything beyond wagging their political jaws.

But that's still beside the point; nobody has yet presented a credible argument why the US would be orchestrating false charges in Sweden when they have a perfectly serviceable extradition treaty with the UK. The idea that some sort of espionage charge wouldn't get him extradited from the UK is risible.

The fact that Assange is now saying he expects political pressure to stop a police investigation into three-year-old lost luggage dovetails nicely with his unsupported claim that the US is pulling all these strings in Sweden; it's almost like he's performing some bizarre sort of psyop to discredit himself.

The only important thing here is whether or not Assange believes that the charges are real. If you assume that he does, his actions make a reasonable amount of sense. And as has been pointed out before, saying that they won't extradite him to the USA costs them nothing if they have no plans to do so, and would only serve to discredit Assange if he still refused to leave the embassy. So why won't they?

The only important thing here is whether or not Assange believes that the charges are real. If you assume that he does, his actions make a reasonable amount of sense. And as has been pointed out before, saying that they won't extradite him to the USA costs them nothing if they have no plans to do so, and would only serve to discredit Assange if he still refused to leave the embassy. So why won't they?

"The charges are completely false, therefore the US must be out to get me?" Yeah, I suppose that could work, in a he's-paranoid-but-they-really-are-out-to-get-him kinda way.

If I were the relevant part of the Swedish government, the closest I would get to his demands is stating whether or not Sweden has received or knows of any US extradition request. Guaranteeing that they won't honour one if they receive one while he is on Swedish soil is, I suspect, legally untenable. Of course, it's not like the UK would offer him that guarantee either now, is it?

So, you're a pariah to powerful nations – nations with extensive international surveillance operations and yet you choose to not only fly commercial aircraft, but also to check your luggage which contains critical information (albeit encrypted); What are you, fucking stupid?

No he wasn't stupid. Obviously Julian Assange has been a lawful citizen all his life, who has never had a run-in with the laws and so the cops knew that and hit him while he wasn't looking. The norm of what the cops do to their suspects, is to hit him with a surprise right hook. If you ask anyone who have been on the street, he would tell you that he would rather have kept his laptop with him on a carry-on instead of checked in. Common sense for the street guys but not for this guy Julian Assange.

If you were to said to Julian Assange not to check-in his laptops, he properly had laugh at you in your face and called you a paranoia. "Hey, I got nothing to hide, don't be such a paranoia." Just like so many Arsians here they would never believe what you said about the corrupted cops, or could it be those are the one who are working for the cops? Oh, well..

I'm gobsmacked by the blind obedience and reverence toward authority being expressed by some here, as if authority is *always* right and we must *always* defer to exactly what they say, because we are mere servants of their majesty. What proudly servile and obsequious little citizens they have in all of you.

Gobsmacked, wow. Did you have to pick a lot of straw out of your teeth?

So, you're a pariah to powerful nations – nations with extensive international surveillance operations and yet you choose to not only fly commercial aircraft, but also to check your luggage which contains critical information (albeit encrypted); What are you, fucking stupid?

Perhaps you got a good grade in maths or something, and got used to the idea that you are much smarter than everyone else. However, when talking about a guy known to be very smart, maybe you should stop and think?

Security is about tradeoffs, you can never eliminate risk. Likely, Assange assumed his laptops wouldn't be stolen because 1. This would be risky and bad PR for the thieves' employer 2. It wouldn't amount to more than an inconvenience for Assange, since it was all encrypted and he had backups.

What he did not count on, was Domscheit-Berg's betrayal. The backups were stolen and later deleted.

Friends and enemies alike say Assange is very trustful on a human level. This makes sense. You'll never get anything done if you never trust anyone. And frankly, to this day it's hard to believe Domscheit-Berg could be so dumb and/or evil to do what he did.

See? Good thing this important work is in the hands of Julian Assange after all, and not this visiondrawn guy who's a little too eager to assume he's smarter than everyone. Though you're welcome to go in his footsteps.

If I were the relevant part of the Swedish government, the closest I would get to his demands is stating whether or not Sweden has received or knows of any US extradition request. Guaranteeing that they won't honour one if they receive one while he is on Swedish soil is, I suspect, legally untenable.

That's what the Swedish government says, but it's a fig leaf.

All extradition decisions are ultimately taken by the executive in Sweden. Courts can intervene to stop an extradition on humanitarian grounds, but if the government has decided to NOT extradite, they can't be overruled by a court. They are sovereign in dealing with other countries in this way.

To put it another way: The state's obligation to an individual - respecting his human rights - may interfere with their ability to do as they please wrt. extradition. But when it comes to obligations to other states, the state isn't limited in any way. They might argue from the extradition agreement (and it'd be pretty easy) that Julian Assange would risk political persecution in the US. Or they might ignore the whole extradition agreement and say "We're not going to extradite because we don't like Obama's face. He's black.". That'd be a scandal, and probably would provoke responses disastrous for Sweden, but it wouldn't be illegal - no court, national or international, could overrule them. That's what sovereignty means.

Assange is an activist, not a journalist, which is clear to anyone who's read anything he's ever said about anything. Journalism is about the story: Assange is about Assange.

One thing that has always struck me about Wikileaks is how irrelevant it generally is, given its stated purpose. If you want to have a good time, go check out Cryptome. All public documents, all obscure, but man does it give a vision of the reality around us, and in that context, NOTHING revealed by Manning or Snowden via Wikileaks or The Guardian is all that surprising.

Wikileaks has always been driven by controversy, and usually controversy that serves to cement the celebrity status of Assange.

+1. Cryptome has got some good shit. Considering that Chelsea Manning is going to prison for a long time and Edward Snowden is actually in hiding from the U.S. government who is actively looking for him, Julian Assange acting the martyr over some sex crimes in Sweden that he seems narcissistic enough to have committed doesn't exactly move the needle on my personal sympathy meter.

If I were the relevant part of the Swedish government, the closest I would get to his demands is stating whether or not Sweden has received or knows of any US extradition request. Guaranteeing that they won't honour one if they receive one while he is on Swedish soil is, I suspect, legally untenable.

That's what the Swedish government says, but it's a fig leaf.

All extradition decisions are ultimately taken by the executive in Sweden. Courts can intervene to stop an extradition on humanitarian grounds, but if the government has decided to NOT extradite, they can't be overruled by a court. They are sovereign in dealing with other countries in this way.

To put it another way: The state's obligation to an individual - respecting his human rights - may interfere with their ability to do as they please wrt. extradition. But when it comes to obligations to other states, the state isn't limited in any way. They might argue from the extradition agreement (and it'd be pretty easy) that Julian Assange would risk political persecution in the US. Or they might ignore the whole extradition agreement and say "We're not going to extradite because we don't like Obama's face. He's black.". That'd be a scandal, and probably would provoke responses disastrous for Sweden, but it wouldn't be illegal - no court, national or international, could overrule them. That's what sovereignty means.

Very eloquently put, but the fact that so many people (based on the amount and frequency of such comments made), do not seem to know or understand this point troubles me, since it is one of the basic tenants our western modern societies are built upon.

I remember learning about it in secondary school, and I am sure you can read about it in any introductory textbook, or just call your closest university with any law or political science department.

In regard to Sweden and this specific case, I remember that even Nils Rekke, attorney general at the chancellery of the prosecutor-general, did explain this very fact quite explicitly in articles in some of Sweden's biggest newspapers, around 2 years back, so it baffles me that these misunderstandings or misconceptions still exists today!